Table of Contents

Early Identification of the Serious Habitual Juvenile Offender Using a Birth Cohort in Philadelphia, 1958-1984 (ICPSR 2312)

Principal Investigator(s):
Weiner, Neil Alan, University of Pennsylvania. School of Social Work. Center for the Study of Youth Policy and Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law

Summary:

Beginning in the mid-1980s, the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) funded the creation of Habitual
Offender Units (HOUs) in 13 cities. HOUs were created to prosecute
habitual juvenile offenders by deploying the most experienced
attorneys to handle these cases from start to finish. By targeting the
earliest points in the career sequence of the juvenile offenders, the
greatest number of serious offenses can potentially be averted.
Selection criteria to qualify for priority prosecution by an HOU
usually encompassed one or more generic components relating to aspects
of a juvenile's present and prior offense record. In Philadelphia, to
be designated a serious habitual offender and to qualify for priority
prosecution by the HOU, a youth had to have two or more prior
adjudications or open cases for specific felonies, as well as a
current arrest for a specified felony. The first three police contacts
in a Philadelphia juvenile offender's record were of special interest
because they included the earliest point (i.e., the third contact) at
which a youth could be prosecuted in the Philadelphia HOU, under their
selection criteria. The main objectives of this study were to
determine how well the selection criteria identified serious habitual
offenders and which variables, reflecting HOU selection criteria,
criminal histories, and personal characteristics, were most strongly
and consistently related to the frequency and seriousness of future
juvenile and young adult offending. To accomplish this, an assessment
was conducted using a group of juveniles born in 1958 whose criminal
career outcomes were already known. Applying the HOU selection
criteria to this group made it possible to determine the extent to
which the criteria identified future habitual offending. Data for the
analyses were obtained from a birth cohort of Black and white males
born in 1958 who resided in Philadelphia from their 10th through their
18th birthdays. Criminal careers represent police contacts for the
juvenile years and arrests for the young adult years, for which police
contacts and arrests are synonymous. The 40 dependent variables were
computed using 5 different criminal career aspects for 4 crime type
groups for 2 age intervals. The data also contain various dummy
variables related to prior offenses, including type of offense, number
of prior offenses, disposition of the offenses, age at first prior
offense, seriousness of first prior offense, weapon used, and whether
it was a gang-related offense. Dummy variables pertaining to the
current offenses include type of offense, number of crime categories,
number of charges, number of offenders, gender, race, and age of
offenders, type of intimidation used, weapons used, number of crime
victims, gender, race, and age of victims, type of injury to victim,
type of victimization, characteristics of offense site, type of
complainant, and police response. Percentile of the offender's
socioeconomic status is also provided. Continuous variables include
age at first prior offense, age at most recent prior offense, age at
current offense, and average age of victims.

Beginning in the mid-1980s, the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) funded the creation of Habitual
Offender Units (HOUs) in 13 cities. HOUs were created to prosecute
habitual juvenile offenders by deploying the most experienced
attorneys to handle these cases from start to finish. By targeting the
earliest points in the career sequence of the juvenile offenders, the
greatest number of serious offenses can potentially be averted.
Selection criteria to qualify for priority prosecution by an HOU
usually encompassed one or more generic components relating to aspects
of a juvenile's present and prior offense record. In Philadelphia, to
be designated a serious habitual offender and to qualify for priority
prosecution by the HOU, a youth had to have two or more prior
adjudications or open cases for specific felonies, as well as a
current arrest for a specified felony. The first three police contacts
in a Philadelphia juvenile offender's record were of special interest
because they included the earliest point (i.e., the third contact) at
which a youth could be prosecuted in the Philadelphia HOU, under their
selection criteria. The main objectives of this study were to
determine how well the selection criteria identified serious habitual
offenders and which variables, reflecting HOU selection criteria,
criminal histories, and personal characteristics, were most strongly
and consistently related to the frequency and seriousness of future
juvenile and young adult offending. To accomplish this, an assessment
was conducted using a group of juveniles born in 1958 whose criminal
career outcomes were already known. Applying the HOU selection
criteria to this group made it possible to determine the extent to
which the criteria identified future habitual offending. Data for the
analyses were obtained from a birth cohort of Black and white males
born in 1958 who resided in Philadelphia from their 10th through their
18th birthdays. Criminal careers represent police contacts for the
juvenile years and arrests for the young adult years, for which police
contacts and arrests are synonymous. The 40 dependent variables were
computed using 5 different criminal career aspects for 4 crime type
groups for 2 age intervals. The data also contain various dummy
variables related to prior offenses, including type of offense, number
of prior offenses, disposition of the offenses, age at first prior
offense, seriousness of first prior offense, weapon used, and whether
it was a gang-related offense. Dummy variables pertaining to the
current offenses include type of offense, number of crime categories,
number of charges, number of offenders, gender, race, and age of
offenders, type of intimidation used, weapons used, number of crime
victims, gender, race, and age of victims, type of injury to victim,
type of victimization, characteristics of offense site, type of
complainant, and police response. Percentile of the offender's
socioeconomic status is also provided. Continuous variables include
age at first prior offense, age at most recent prior offense, age at
current offense, and average age of victims.

Access Notes

The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public.
Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

Study Description

Citation

Weiner, Neil Alan. EARLY IDENTIFICATION OF THE SERIOUS HABITUAL JUVENILE OFFENDER USING A BIRTH COHORT IN PHILADELPHIA, 1958-1984. ICPSR02312-v1. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, 1996. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1998. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02312.v1

(1) Users are encouraged to obtain a copy of the final
report for more information on the methodology and analyses associated
with this study. (2) The user guide and codebook are provided as a
Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The PDF file format was developed
by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader
software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to
obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided through the ICPSR
Website on the Internet.

Methodology

Study Purpose:
Beginning in the mid-1980s, the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) funded the
creation of Habitual Offender Units (HOUs) in 13 cities. HOUs were
created to prosecute habitual juvenile offenders by deploying the most
experienced attorneys to handle these cases from start to finish. By
targeting the earliest points in the career sequence of the juvenile
offenders, the greatest number of serious offenses can potentially be
averted. Selection criteria to qualify for priority prosecution by an
HOU usually encompassed one or more generic components relating to
aspects of a juvenile's present and prior offense record. In
Philadelphia, to be designated a serious habitual offender and to
qualify for priority prosecution by the Philadelphia HOU, a youth had
to have two or more prior adjudications or open cases for specific
felonies and a current arrest for a specified felony. Specific
felonies included criminal homicide and first degree felonies, such as
rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, arson, involuntary
deviate sexual intercourse, and drug offenses (delivery or possession
with intent to deliver). In other words, an accumulation of a
prespecified number of serious delinquent acts would trigger a
specialized prosecutorial response. Each city's HOU adopted its own
selection criteria based also on a combination of legal and
administrative considerations. Legal considerations centered on the
seriousness of the specified charges and the mounting criminal
liability engendered by multiple arrests or
adjudications. Administrative considerations centered on the number of
cases generated by the selection criteria. However, none of the cities
adopted selection criteria on the basis of systematic research and
almost no research was conducted on how well these HOUs' selection
criteria identified serious habitual offenders. The following
questions arose about the Philadelphia selection criteria: (1) The
specified crime charges were for serious offenses, but should other
crime charges have been adopted? (2) Some of the specified crime
charges could be related to the more repetitive types of criminal
behavior (e.g., robbery, burglary), but was a single charge better
than a combination of charge types for identifying serious habitual
offending if a relationship between charge type and future offending
exists? (3) Two prior adjudications or pending cases represent a
mounting criminal record and appear to reflect a commitment to
continued criminal activity, but is there a reason to adopt another
threshold, preferably one case rather than two? and (4) Should the
prosecutors consider other information, such as unofficial
information, to identify the serious habitual offender? The main
objective of the study was to determine which variables, reflecting
current selection criteria, criminal histories, and personal
characteristics, were most strongly and consistently related to
selected aspects of a juvenile's future criminal career. With the
capacity to identify accurately serious habitual offenders,
prosecutors would be in a better position to allocate limited staff,
money, and technology to those cases that are most likely to yield the
greatest payoff. Intervention programs, whether based on
incapacitation, deterrence, and/or rehabilitation, would also work
best if the right group of juveniles were selected for priority
prosecution.

Study Design:
This study attempted to identify variables,
reflecting HOU selection criteria, criminal histories, and personal
characteristics, at each of a juvenile's felony police contacts to
determine which were most strongly and consistently related to the
frequency and seriousness of future juvenile and young adult
offending. The first three police contacts in a Philadelphia juvenile
offender's record were of special interest because they included the
earliest point (i.e., the third contact) at which a youth could be
prosecuted in the Philadelphia HOU, under their selection
criteria. Analyses were conducted separately on the first, second, and
third police contacts to (1) assess Philadelphia's current selection
criteria, which were triggered at the third felony police contact, (2)
establish whether there were variables that were consistently related
to a juvenile's future criminal career across the first three felony
transitions, and (3) determine whether there were grounds for
prosecutors to select juveniles for prosecution by the HOU at the
first or second felony police contacts rather than waiting for the
third. To accomplish this, an assessment was conducted using a group
of juveniles born in 1958 whose criminal career outcomes were already
known. Applying the HOU selection criteria to this group made it
possible to determine the extent to which the criteria identified
future habitual offending. Data for the analyses were obtained from a
birth cohort of Black and white males born in 1958 who resided in
Philadelphia from their 10th through their 18th birthdays. For each
birth cohort member with at least one felony police contact during the
juvenile years, spanning the 10th through 18th birthdays, a juvenile
felony sequence was created starting with the juvenile's first felony
and ending with the juvenile's last felony. Then arrest and judicial
histories for the juvenile and young adult periods were merged to form
a continuous sequence, spanning ages 10 through 26. This sequence was
the basis for computing the dependent variables. At each of the
sequential points, or transitions, data were provided for the Black
and white youngsters separately and for both races together. The
pooled data files retained only up to three police contacts. In order
to assess the sensitivity of the findings to sampling error,
statistical analyses were first conducted on a randomly partitioned
construction sample comprising 70 percent of the subjects. The final
statistical results at each felony transition based on the
construction sample were then reexamined at the corresponding felony
transition in a validation sample comprised of the remaining 30
percent. In response to the prosecutors' interest in narrowing the
scope of eligible juveniles to just the "high" group (i.e., most
frequent/serious), the researchers noted that percentages assigned by
the prosecutors to identify the "high" group converged on the top
quartile. Therefore, from an operational standpoint, juveniles with
one or more specified felonies who fell into the top 25 percent with
respect to future repetitive serious offending would be included
"in" the HOU. Juveniles who fell below that point would be directed
"out" of the HOU. To reflect this in-out decision format, dependent
variables were dichotomized, using the 75th percentile to split the
variables into a top 25 percent and a bottom 75 percent. To get some
idea of the robustness of findings and to investigate how alternative
definitions of the "high" and "low" group would affect the
selection criteria used to make the in-out decision, final results
based on the 25/75 percentile split were reanalyzed using a 10/90
split.

Sample:
The study used a cohort of 13,160 males born in
1958 who resided in Philadelphia from their 10th through their
18th birthdays. Cohort members were restricted to those who had
lived in Philadelphia without interruption from age 10 to 17.

Data Source:

administrative records (police, court, and school records)

Description of Variables:
Dependent variables represent aspects of a
juvenile's future criminal career (i.e., aspects that occurred
subsequent to the point in the felony sequence under
analysis). Criminal careers represent police contacts for the juvenile
years and arrests for the young adult years for which police contacts
and arrests are synonymous. Dependent variables were computed in five
ways, reflecting different criminal career aspects: (1) the rate per
year of police contacts, (2) the average seriousness per police
contact, (3) the average seriousness per year of police contacts, (4)
the average number of criminal charges per police contact, and (5) the
average number of criminal charges per year. These five dependent
variables were computed for four crime type groups, in increasing
order of restrictiveness: (1) all offenses (i.e., crime events), (2)
specified felonies (i.e., serious crimes), (3) Uniform Crime Reports
(UCR) index crimes, and (4) UCR violent index crimes (i.e., dangerous
crimes). The five criminal career aspects and four crime type groups
were computed for two age intervals: (1) the remaining juvenile years
(through the youth's 18th birthday) and (2) the remaining juvenile
years and the young adult years (through the youth's 27th
birthday). This resulted in a total of 40 dependent variables. The
data also contain various dummy variables related to prior offenses,
including type of offense, number of prior offenses, disposition of
the offenses, weapon used, whether the offense was gang-related, age
at first prior offense, and seriousness of first prior offense. Dummy
variables pertaining to the current offenses include type of offense,
type of injury to victim, number of crime categories, number of
charges, weapons used, number of offenders, gender, race, and age of
offenders, type of intimidation used, number of crime victims, gender,
race, and age of victims, type of victimization, characteristics of
offense site, type of complainant, and police response. Other
variables include offender's socioeconomic status, age at first prior
offense, age at most recent prior offense, age at current offense, and
average age of victims.

Response Rates:
Not applicable.

Presence of Common Scales:
None.

Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release: 1998-10-15

Version History:

2006-03-30 File SP2312.ALL was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.

2006-03-30 File SA2312.ALL was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.

2006-03-30 File CB2312.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.

2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one
or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well
as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable,
and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to
reflect these additions.